Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conjecture the gentleman has made and extrapolated this out of what this bill would do. In fact, that's not what the bill does at all. The bill says that we will approach in a reasonable way and with respect to the American taxpayer--and to the marketplaces--a plan, a plan that will put America on sound financial footing, which would be the envy of the world, which is part of what the Republican Party would choose to do. Madam Speaker, once again, this rule provides the necessary flexibility the Republican leadership needs to ensure that we do not default on our obligations in the next 4 days. Republicans will continue to provide sound, balanced, and real leadership and pass solutions while the President continues on the pathway--along with the Democratic Party, as we've heard here today--of tax increases and job- killing ideas. With over 14 million Americans unemployed, a $1.4 trillion projected deficit this year, and over $14 trillion in debt, our current financial policies are simply not working. I don't know why we would continue doing what we've been doing when it doesn't work, but perhaps that's what our friends, the Democrats, want to do. We, as Republicans, disagree. So I'm asking the Democratic colleagues, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join their Republican colleagues and me for real fiscal change. Cutting spending and reducing government programs, each of these help us encourage economic growth, not just as we heard in Rogers, Arkansas, but all over this country. It does work, putting Americans back to work. Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article titled, ``Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trends,'' because they do things that balance out the marketplace. I applaud our Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, for his hard work and commitment to the American people, and those people here in the House of Representatives who will do their duty and provide for real and conservative solutions, market-based answers to get our economy back on track. Madam Speaker, this Republican House will not raise taxes. We will not raise spending. We will not yield to the old ways of taxing and spending and not listening and then thinking we know better than others. We're for the free enterprise system. We're for families back home. We're for job growth and real meaningful opportunities for the future of our children. That is what we stand for. So we are here today. Yes, we'll stay in town until we get our job done. We're the people who believe in the free enterprise system. We're the people who believe in the people back home. And we're the people who are going to say ``no'' to Washington, D.C., taxing, spending, big wasteful government. We are the people, the Republican Party. The elephants are in town, and we have a great memory. We know what works. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule. Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trend (By Tony Gutierrez) Finding work may not be quite that simple, but it sure seems that way. While the nation's job growth has limped along since the economic recovery began two years ago, the Lone Star State is enlarging payrolls in Texas-size fashion. From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs, or half the USA's 524,000 payroll gains, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits states with net job losses, Texas' advances make up 30% of the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth. The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the Republican nomination. If he does, he's likely to ground his campaign in his state's outsized job growth. Texas' big gains are partly a reflection of its population growth. But the recent job gains are outpacing the rate of population growth in Texas, the nation's second-largest state, with 25 million residents--about 8% of the U.S. population. INTERACTIVE: Sortable chart: State-by-state look at employment changes The state's payrolls have risen 2.9% since the end of the recession, third behind North Dakota and Alaska and far outpacing the USA's 0.4% growth, according to the BLS. Also, Texas' 8.2% unemployment rate is well below the nation's 9.2%. ``For one large state to grow (jobs) so much faster than the rest of the nation is very unusual,'' says Moody's economist Ed Friedman. Economists point to an array of factors, including high energy prices that set off an oil-drilling frenzy, rising exports and a conservative banking industry that helped the state sidestep the housing crash. Yet while energy has been a spark--employment in natural gas, oil and other mining sectors rose by 45,000, or 23%, since the recession ended--growth has been broad-based. During the past two years, professional and business services added 74,000 jobs; education and health care gained 91,000; and leisure and hospitality grew by 29,000, according to BLS. State officials cite a pro-business climate that Perry helped foster that's drawing scores of businesses from high- cost states--a trend that took on urgency for firms that got lean in the economic downturn. The 10-year Texas governor is ``really focused on creating an environment where people can risk their capital and get a return on investment, and that, in turn, creates jobs for Texans,'' says Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for the state's economic development office. Nashed notes Texas has no state or corporate income tax and keeps regulations at a minimum to allow businesses to grow quickly. She says Perry also has worked to develop a skilled workforce by requiring additional public school classes and pushing through tort reform to limit frivolous lawsuits. The state, meantime, has doled out more than $600 million in grants and investments since 2003 to recruit out-of-state companies and help Texas firms expand. Does Perry really deserve credit? Yet some question Perry's role in the so-called Texas Miracle. James Galbraith, a professor of government at the University of Texas-Austin, largely attributes the state's job growth to the energy and export booms. Texas, he notes, has never had an income tax. From 1990 to 2000, before Perry took office, Texas payrolls swelled 36%, compared with 21% for the nation. ``Rick Perry did not come and find a high-tax, high-service state and dismantle it,'' Galbraith says. ``For something to contribute, there (has to be) a change. There's been a change in oil prices.'' Others say the state's low tax burdens exact a high cost: fewer state services. Perry, for example, refused to raise taxes to close a $27 billion budget gap last spring. Instead, the Legislature slashed more than $4 billion in funding for public schools the next two years, a move that's likely to lead to tens of thousands of teacher layoffs. ``We're not preparing our children to compete in tomorrow's economy,'' says Scott McCown, head of Texas' Center for Public Policy Priorities. Texas ranks 44th in the USA in per-student expenditures and 43rd in high school graduation rates, McCown says. Seventeen percent of Texans lived below the poverty level in 2009, compared with 14% for the nation. The state leads in the percentage of the population with no health insurance and was ninth in income inequality in the mid-2000s, the latest data available, according to McCown and the Economic Policy Institute. McCown says Texas should not serve as a job-growth paradigm for the rest of the nation. ``If you're saying you want to look like Texas, you're saying you want to be poor and have less health care,'' he says. The state's relatively low wages, particularly for low- skilled jobs, stems in part from its status as a right-to- work state with little unionization. That dampens consumer spending and limits economic growth, McCown says. In June, average hourly earnings for private-sector employees in Texas were about 5% lower than the U.S. average. But Mark Dotzour, chief economist at Texas A&M's Real Estate Center, says the state's lower pay helps it compete in a global economy. ``Either you choose to have low-wage jobs or you choose to have no jobs at all,'' he says. The state's reasonable cost of living, he adds, makes it possible for many residents to live comfortably on lower salaries. The Dallas area ranks 10th in housing affordability among 82 metro areas with more than 1 million residents, while Houston is 15th, according to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. That's partly because Texas has an abundance of cheap land--another draw for firms looking to relocate. Other reasons for the state's robust job growth: The energy boom. Oil prices have nearly tripled since early 2009. High prices spark more exploration and production. Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs have let companies extract natural gas embedded in shale deposits. Barnett Shale in Fort Worth is one of the USA's largest gas fields, and drilling began at the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas in 2008. The number of oil and gas rigs in the state has jumped to 850 from 330 in July 2009, says Ana Orozco, economist for IHS Global Insight. Each rig employs a few dozen workers and leads to hiring by engineering firms, pipeline builders and other services. Exports. Overseas shipments by Texas' strong computer, electronics, petrochemical and other industries rose 21% last year, compared with 15% for the nation, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. The state also benefits from its proximity to Latin American countries that are big importers of U.S. goods, Friedman says. The surge creates jobs for Texas manufacturers and ports. No housing crash. Texas never had a housing boom but also avoided the bust that decimated consumer credit and home construction in much of the rest of the nation. While prices of single-family homes more than doubled from January 2000 to their mid-2000s peak in cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and Las Vegas, they rose less than 27% in the Dallas/Fort Worth market, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price index. Meanwhile, Texas banks burned by the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980s were less eager than those in other states to approve risky mortgages. And Texas law limits mortgage debt, including home-equity loans, to 80% of a home's value. ``People didn't use their houses like ATMs,'' says Dallas Fed Vice President Mine Yucel. Texas still was hit by the recession. Annual permits for single-family homes declined 59% from their 2005 peak to 2010, but that's less than the nation's 73% plunge, according to Texas A&M. Similarly, employment fell 4% in the downturn; the USA's overall drop was 6.3%. Texas has recovered 380,000 jobs since its December 2009 low and is now just 54,000 shy of its 10.6 million peak. Population growth. Texas' population grew by 4.3 million, or 21%, during the past decade, more than twice the national pace. About half the total was because of births, but Texas also gained 849,000 residents via state-to-state migration, second only to Florida. Texas thus benefits from a virtuous cycle: More people are moving there for work, generating consumer demand that creates still more jobs. That's expanded the workforce, keeping the unemployment rate at 8.2%--ranked just 26th in the nation--despite the strong payroll advances. One recent arrival is Ife Oyedokun, 26, who this month moved to the Austin area from Philadelphia, where he worked as a high school counselor, to be closer to his family. Within two weeks he had a job as a rehabilitation specialist for a growing outpatient facility for the mentally ill. ``I was very surprised,'' he says. ``With just how the economy is now, I figured three, four, five months'' to find a job. `Hunting' for possible relocations Companies also are feeling the pull. Corporate giants including Fluor, Toyota and Medtronic recently moved headquarters or operations to Texas, and eBay, AT&T, Samsung and Cirrus Logic have expanded there. Samsung added about 700 jobs in Austin since last year, enlarging a plant that makes chips for smartphones. Area business leaders, meanwhile, have aggressively courted out-of-state companies. The Dallas Regional Chamber this month sent a letter to 50 Illinois corporations, urging them to consider a move to Texas. The mailing includes a side-by-side comparison of the two states that notes Illinois recently raised corporate and personal income taxes and highlights Texas' lower housing, labor and other expenses. ``States with heavy-duty business taxes, personal taxes or regulatory mind-sets define themselves as our targets,'' says Chamber CEO Jim Oberwetter. ``That's just where we go hunting.'' Texas has particularly tried to lure high-tech California companies to lower-cost technology corridors in Austin, Dallas and San Antonio. Medtronic, the Minneapolis-based medical device giant, has moved customer support for its diabetes unit from the Los Angeles area to San Antonio in the past 22 months, creating 750 jobs in Texas. Jeff Ruiz, head of Medtronic's Texas operations, says the company was drawn by labor costs that are ``significantly lower'' than those in Los Angeles and a large, high-quality workforce. Ruiz also points to more affordable real estate and the lack of a state corporate tax, though he says the latter was a minor factor. The company, which also received $14 million in incentives from the state--a figure Ruiz says was comparable with other offers--chose San Antonio from among more than 900 U.S. cities it evaluated. For some, the benefits are more basic. Marketing firm Red Ventures this year opened a San Antonio office that's expected to grow to 250 employees from 60 by year's end, says spokeswoman Kylie Craig. Besides the region's ample talent pool, other draws were the city's non- stop flights to Red Ventures' other offices in Miami and Charlotte and its 7.3% unemployment rate. In cities with high jobless rates, ``We're having to sift through (many) unqualified applicants.'' Then there's Texas' laid-back lifestyle and lower costs, assets that prompted Vermillion, a start-up developer of blood tests with 29 employees, to move from Fremont, Calif., to Austin about a year ago. ``We found it very difficult to recruit people into California because of the cost of living, traffic, congestion,'' says CEO Gail Page. The corporate relocations and expansions are having a ripple effect on restaurants, hospitals and other service businesses. Winstead, a Dallas law firm with about 270 lawyers statewide, has added 50 since last year to handle the extra workload from firms, such as Comerica Bank, that have moved to Texas the past few years, says Mike Baggett, Winstead's chairman emeritus. And after cutting staff in 2009 and 2010, DeMontrond Automotive in Houston has hired about 20 employees the past few months in response to a 20% jump in revenue, says owner George DeMontrond. Houston lost 120,000 jobs in the recession but has gained about 50,000 the last seven months. ``I think people who have held off and not purchased large- ticket items because of uncertainty are a little bit more ready to do it,'' DeMontrond says. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Pinnacle Technical Resources, Inc. on its fifteenth anniversary this year. Located in Dallas, Texas, Pinnacle was born in a living room and quickly matured into an award-winning information technology staffing company. Under the leadership and vision of Chief Executive Officer Nina Vaca-Humrichouse, Pinnacle expanded nationwide and created over 20,000 jobs, consequently ranking six straight years as one of the fastest growing companies in its industry. In 2009, Pinnacle received the CIO 100 Award for its development of PROGATA, a proprietary industry-leading software tool. Beyond their financial success, Pinnacle emphasizes social responsibility and actively encourages employees to contribute to the local community. Boy Scouts of America, United Way, Habitat for Humanity, and the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation are among the many nonprofit organizations Pinnacle supports. This year, Pinnacle also provided scholarships to thirty-two high school students to attend the Dallas Hispanic Youth Institute, a well-regarded summer symposium. Pinnacle Technical Resources embodies the entrepreneurial spirit of America; a concept with humble beginnings that transformed into a fast- growing and nationally recognized company. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the staff and leadership of Pinnacle Technical Resources as they celebrate fifteen years of success.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Birmingham, Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 358 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The question before the House is, shall the House now consider H. Res. 358? That is really the question here. While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is simply made up in nature. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has issued cost estimates for each of the three bills included in the Rules Committee Print of H.R. 1315. The following statements were issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: ``H.R. 1315 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.'' ``H.R. 1121 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.'' ``H.R. 1667 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.'' Madam Speaker, these are the three sections--the bills--which are contained within the rule. As we have stated, as a result of what has been defined, there are no mandates. There is nothing in this bill which would cause the point of order to stand. However, my friends on the other side of the aisle have also raised concerns about the amount of debate time provided for in this rule. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee takes great pride in its degree of openness; and under the leadership of Chairman David Dreier and of our Speaker, John Boehner, we have tried to accommodate this request. This rule continues that record of accomplishment by making in order 11 out of the 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of the three amendments not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor; one was not germane to the bill, and one was duplicative of another amendment submitted. I would also like to note for the record that the bill being considered today and every bill included in the Rules Committee Print went through regular order. The Financial Services Committee held hearings, a subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup of the bill. Madam Speaker, I see that my friends are trying to make a point of order that simply does not exist. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 358 provides for a structured rule, designated by the Rules Committee, for consideration of H.R. 1315. This rule allows for 11 of 14 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This legislation, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act, was introduced by my dear friend from Wisconsin, the Congressman Sean Duffy, on April 1, 2011. The bill went through regular order, with hearings, subcommittee markup, and a full committee markup. I applaud my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, for providing such an open process and an opportunity for all members of the Financial Services Committee to participate in reforming and changing this bill. Additionally, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body with a Rules Committee vote to ensure that we have transparency and an accountable structure under the rule which we're discussing today allowing Members from both sides of the aisle this opportunity to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation. Today marks the first anniversary that President Obama signed into law the 1,300-page unprecedented Federal overhaul of the financial services industry, the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act. I have the opportunity to discuss this bill today, and also I did last Congress. And we spoke at that time about its overarching reforms that were being made in that legislation. Additionally, I will discuss why and how it is bad for our current economy and what with the Republican underlying bill will do to protect consumers, ensure credit, and allow for economic growth. Last year, I stood before this body to state that our friends on the other side of the aisle, that they were once again allowing the government to overstep its boundaries well into the private marketplace. One of the most far-reaching provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill that was signed into law last year is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, best known as CFPB. The CFPB is a classic example of the government unnecessarily crippling its authority into the free enterprise system. This massive new Bureau will be led by a credit czar, who will have unprecedented and unchecked authority to restrict product choices for consumers and impose fees on consumer products and financial transactions. Just about any business or financial institution who offers any form of credit falls underneath the jurisdiction of the CFPB. The new bureaucracy would raise costs for consumers. I will say this again--will raise costs for consumers. It will reduce the number and types of products available to them. It will increase the micromanagement of financial services firms and will greatly increase the confusion caused by differing and conflicting consumer laws across the United States. The underlying bill we are voting on today is designed to promote greater accountability and transparency at the CFPB, and to ensure that the CFPB fulfills its consumer protection mandate without undermining the safety and soundness of the financial system. This bill achieves this mission by making the leadership structure of the CFPB a collegial body, streamlining the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or what is known as FSOC, their review and oversight of CFPB rules and regulations, and delaying the transfer of functions from other Federal regulatory bodies to the CFPB until the date on which the Chair of the Commission of the CFPB is confirmed by the Senate. This comes, and it is of a great deal of importance since it was just this week that President Obama nominated Richard Cordray as the Director of the CFPB, which officially begins its oversight of banks with more than $10 billion in assets today. So no Director, no mission statement, no accountability, no hearing in the Senate to confirm the person who would have this extensive authority and responsibility. The Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act makes three important changes to the current CFPB: First, it would change the vote required to set aside a CFPB regulation from two-thirds of the FSOC membership to a simple majority vote, excluding the Chair of the CFPB. A letter from the American Bankers Association, from May 3, 2011, states, and I quote, ``The very purpose of the FSOC was to avoid problems that could lead to risks that threaten the economy. To ignore the majority viewpoint of the regulators with this responsibility is completely counter to its mission statement and that of the council.'' This first provision ensures that the council carries out the intended mission and goal; Second, the bill would clarify that the FSOC must set aside any CFPB provision that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of U.S. financial institutions; Lastly, the bill amends Dodd-Frank which provided for the CFPB to be headed by a Director to be replaced with a bipartisan commission with the responsibility of exercising the Bureau's authorities. This was in the original House version of the bill and was changed by the Senate during conference. In a letter sent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated May 23, 2011, the U.S. Chamber expressed support, saying, ``The Chamber strongly supports this reform because it would conform the bureau to other independent agencies, ensure impartial decisionmaking, minimize the risk of regulatory capture, and ensure continued stability over the long term.'' Reforms to the CFPB as it stands are necessary to avoid business closures, limitations to start-up companies, slower economic growth, and ensure that we do not hinder the free enterprise system. These are all in the best interest of consumers and our country. The underlying legislation ensures that the original intent of this legislation is carried out in a fair and unbiased manner to ensure the future safety and soundness of our Nation's financial institutions. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, in an encouragement to my dear colleague Ms. Slaughter, I would like to inform her that I have fewer speakers as a result of committee hearings and would encourage her to run through perhaps two of her speakers at this time and then I will be available with mine. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas, a freshman member of this body, Congressman Francisco ``Quico'' Canseco.

Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm going to have to stand up for what we're here for today, and that is, Madam Speaker, that after this bill was passed, it took almost one year for the President to appoint the person who would run the CFPB. The person who runs the CFPB is required to have Senate confirmation. During Senate confirmation--and it's a process that takes place for senior administrators who run our government--during that period of time this person who is nominated by the President would be expected to come in on behalf of the agency as a result of understanding their mission statement and the things that they do and would be expected to come to the United States Senate and to express their ideas. This is a brand new agency. How it would be run, what their mandate would be, how they would manage the assets and resources not only of the agency but how they viewed that mission statement vis-a-vis the industry. The President took a year to nominate this person. That person has not even begun their hearings. I think, and this is what Republicans think, and this is what our bill says today. I know the gentleman, Mr. Frank, said, Oh, no, Republicans have something far greater and bigger. It's that they don't want this agency. Well, perhaps we don't want the CFPB. Perhaps we don't. But that's not what we're here today saying. We're here saying that until that head of that agency has a chance--a brand new agency--has a chance--after all, it's taken a year to come and speak forthrightly to elected officials that are called Members of the Senate to answer questions about how they would run this agency, what the philosophies should be, what the intent of the agency is, how the interaction between other agencies really should be done, what they think of the law, and what they see their job as being. Those are important issues. And so Republicans are saying we should not move forward on that until such time as we are able to go through that process. So that's really what Republicans are here for. I know there are a lot of people listening and watching and think there's something sinister about Republicans. This is common sense. Republicans are here talking about an agency that will have broad and almost unlimited access to the marketplace. To overregulate, if you look at the possibilities. And we're trying to say before we kick this thing off, let's make sure we have an idea of what the leader would say. Otherwise, we should go to a group of people who will run this, not just one. So that's what we're here to do today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's perspective of looking into my brain and knowing what I think or talking about how 44 senators override what I'm saying. I would tend to offer the argument that as we near now the August recess, they had every understanding that the President, without this person going through hearings, having to come to Congress, to the Senate, to talk about and go through these hearings, that the President would just offer a recess appointment. In other words, bypassing exactly what we're talking about should happen, and that is where this brand-new nominated person, after a year, waiting until just a few weeks before the August recess. Madam Speaker, what we're saying is we're not going to allow, in the Senate, the 44 Senators saying they're not going to allow a recess appointment where this person is appointed, nominated, and just gets it done because the Senate is gone. We're not going to allow him to skip out of coming and having to be thoughtful and talking about what he's going to do as the head of this CFPB. So to say that 44 Senators really are trying to do the wrong thing or that I'm here trying to suggest something different is not true. We believe that this new agency must have the person who's going to head it to come to Congress, be forthright and open to hearing questions and responding back. I think that's open, honest, transparent, and legitimate. And if the President waited a year, he should expect that we would probably have an opinion that we would not want a recess appointment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the question. I have no further requests for time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Congress has an opportunity today to ensure that we protect consumers and American business. Additionally, we have an opportunity to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions in the United States. That's what we are also here to do. Reforms to the CFPB are necessary and, I believe, timely. Congress must and has a responsibility to do everything that we can to encourage economic growth, jump-start the free enterprise system and put Americans back to work. Growing our economy and slowing Federal spending will be the best way that we can work together to get our economy back on track, to get out of rising debt and also out of the financial malaise that's underway. This legislation provides for some of these necessary steps. I applaud my colleagues. I thank my colleagues also on the Republican side who were here to not only defend what we're doing but to talk about the need for such action. This bill that we are facing here today has the support of the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I applaud them for providing such an open and transparent process. I also encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina, who sits right next to me in the Rules Committee and has for a number of years. And I appreciate not only her leadership but her service. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand up just as a Member of this body. We're all equal representatives in this body, and I do recognize that there are people that come down here and talk about all the layoffs that will occur and all the hard times and people losing their insurance and all the dramatic things that will happen. Mr. Speaker, we need a 6 percent cut. We need a 6 percent cut because we've been receiving outlandish increments of increases for a number of years, including the first year, I believe, that Speaker Pelosi was in, a 10 percent increase. Mr. Speaker, the American people are having a tough time. But the American free enterprise system, when faced with these opportunities, and I think it's what will happen in our offices, we're all going to look at each other; and instead of laying somebody off, we'll all understand there's not enough money to go around and we're going to have to all take a sacrifice. That's what I intend to do in my office, and I hope my employees will understand that. This is going to mean some changes, and sometimes change is hard. But just to continue to receive more money because taxpayers, who control the money--that taxpayers would expect us to just answer every one of their questions and do every one of their things is an outlandish example of a government out of control. We need to make sure that our offices are just as responsible as other areas of the government. It's time to cut back. It's time that we take a hit. It's time that we join with the rest of the American people and understand these are difficult times; these are difficult times because government is too big, costs too much money, listens too little, and now is unadaptive to the hard times themselves. Mr. Speaker, I say let's vote for this Legislative appropriations bill, and let's cut the amount of money that we have for ourselves in the House of Representatives. A 6 percent cut helps lead the way, and we can do that. That's why Republicans are in the majority; we can make tough decisions in difficult times.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember my friend, Louis Arthur Beecherl, Jr. He was kind, generous, and a man of great character that deeply loved God and country. Louis passed away on Tuesday, July 5, 2011. Born and raised in Dallas, Texas, Louis graduated from Highland Park High School and received Bachelor of Science degrees from Tulane University and the University of Texas. He proudly served as a servicemember in the United States Navy and had a successful career in the energy business spanning forty years. Louis' life reflected his love for his community and his belief in service. From serving in numerous civic and charitable organizations to participating in the public policy process, he always sought to meet the needs of others and worked tirelessly for the betterment of our community. His passion for water conservation motivated him to become involved with the Texas Water Development Board and the Trinity Improvement Association. His belief in the importance of higher education led him to establish distinguished professorships and faculty chairs at the University of Texas at Dallas and to serve on the Board of Regents for the University of Texas System. The YMCA of Metropolitan Dallas, Salvation Army, and the Circle 10 Council for the Boy Scouts of America are among the many other organizations he supported. His unwavering commitment to help others inspired us all and his legacy speaks loudly of his impact on our community. Mr. Beecherl is survived by his loving wife of sixty-one years, Julie; his sons, Louis III and wife Cynthia, John and wife Mary, Will and wife Kay, Ernest and wife Susan, Robert and wife, Medore; his daughters, Jan Davis and husband Alan, Mary Dillard and husband Bill, and Kay Herring and husband Edward; his thirty-five grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. I am honored to have known him and called him my friend. He will be greatly missed. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, over the last few weeks, the House has voted three times in favor of striking problematic and anticompetitive A-76 language from H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill; and from H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill; and last week from H.R. 2219, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. The same change and reversal of bad policy should be adopted in this legislation by striking section 102 from the bill. My amendment would strike section 102 of this legislation, which, as drafted, prohibits the use of any funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions performed by Federal Government employees to private competition pursuant to a study conducted under OMB Circular A-76 or high- performing organizations for the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, some 850,000 of the 2 million executive branch, non- postal, full-time, and permanent positions are jobs that are commercial in nature. The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost comparison generate on average a 30 percent cost savings regardless of which sector wins the competition. According to Americans for Tax Reform, the average cost of each new Federal employee for salary, benefits and pension totals $4.27 million. Without competition, government-run monopolies of commercial activities duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money. The requirements outlined in section 102 are unnecessary. Rather than preventing market competition that would improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to the citizens of this great Nation. The role of government should be to govern, not to operate businesses inside the government. The Nation's current unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. Congress must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage and, might I also add, without an unfair disadvantage to the taxpayer. Removing section 102 will allow the private sector just this opportunity. If competition is deemed fair, it really doesn't matter who wins. As long as both sides are allowed equal opportunity, the taxpayer should be and, I believe, would be the ultimate winner. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer- first amendment and to ensure cost-saving competition is available. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.